Polly proposes that Sky should save the BBC's finances

[aeolium]

Calculations based of international comparisons, adjusted to take into account the specifics of the UK market, indicate that in the region of £120m per year could be extracted from BSkyB, for the most part, but also from Virgin. If, that is, either distributor could actually be prevailed upon to pay. 'This has been slow burn, but we all have an interest in this and it is now definitely on the table among broadcasters,' said one senior TV executive. 'We all pay a fair amount of money to Sky and provide them with free channels, but no money flows to us. Yet where would their platform be without PSB channels? How many people would subscribe?'

JS, that is interesting, but as has been said before, people do not subscribe to Sky to watch free-to-view PSB channels. I can understand the BBC, or ITV/Channel4/Channel5 threatening to remove their channels from the Sky platform, and perhaps doing it for there does not seem to be any legal requirement for the channels to be provided on Sky, but as for trying to get £120m from Sky for the supposed benefit of hosting those channels - that seems pie-in-the-sky to me. I'm sure Sky would turn round and say, we're not paying - take your channels away if you want. As I mentioned, it is perfectly easy for people with Sky to access Freeview channels on their TV.

The only difference between Freeview provision and Sky's in relation to the BBC channels as far as I am aware is that the latter allows access to all the BBC's regional versions irrespective of where you live. You can also get S4C on Sky even if you don't live in Wales. But I really don't think the loss of the main Freeview channels from the Sky platform would make a significant dent in Sky's subscriber numbers.

[anotherbob]

JS, that is interesting, but as has been said before, people do not subscribe to Sky to watch free-to-view PSB channels. I can understand the BBC, or ITV/Channel4/Channel5 threatening to remove their channels from the Sky platform, and perhaps doing it for there does not seem to be any legal requirement for the channels to be provided on Sky, but as for trying to get £120m from Sky for the supposed benefit of hosting those channels - that seems pie-in-the-sky to me. I'm sure Sky would turn round and say, we're not paying - take your channels away if you want. As I mentioned, it is perfectly easy for people with Sky to access Freeview channels on their TV.

I believe they would need a Freeview aerial and digibox, or maybe a Freesat box, in addition to their Sky equipment. For those who like to record TV to watch later I'm not sure a Sky+ box would take the input from either Freeview or Freesat so they might need additional recording equipment. However I could be wrong, it's happened before.

The only difference between Freeview provision and Sky's in relation to the BBC channels as far as I am aware is that the latter allows access to all the BBC's regional versions irrespective of where you live. You can also get S4C on Sky even if you don't live in Wales. But I really don't think the loss of the main Freeview channels from the Sky platform would make a significant dent in Sky's subscriber numbers.

It seems the time is right for Sky & the BBC to part company. They don't appear to need each other.

[aeolium]

I believe they would need a Freeview aerial and digibox, or maybe a Freesat box, in addition to their Sky equipment. For those who like to record TV to watch later I'm not sure a Sky+ box would take the input from either Freeview or Freesat so they might need additional recording equipment. However I could be wrong, it's happened before.

anotherbob, I think most TVs sold over the last 7 years or so have had Freeview transmitters built in so that additional equipment would only be needed if the Sky subscribers had pretty old (analogue) TVs. You may well be right about the Sky+ recording - I know nothing about that.

[anotherbob]

anotherbob, I think most TVs sold over the last 7 years or so have had Freeview transmitters built in so that additional equipment would only be needed if the Sky subscribers had pretty old (analogue) TVs. You may well be right about the Sky+ recording - I know nothing about that.

You're right, TVs have digital tuners these days.
However a Freeview aerial would be needed.
Are we in danger of going OT?

[mangerton]

You're right, TVs have digital tuners these days.
However a Freeview aerial would be needed.
Are we in danger of going OT?

What is a "Freeview aerial"? If you mean a "digital aerial", there is no such thing. Further details and information on how to receive digital tv via different methods here:

http://www.paras.org.uk/

[anotherbob]

What is a "Freeview aerial"? If you mean a "digital aerial", there is no such thing.

Nonetheless they seem to be widely available......


If a house is equipped only with a Sky dish it cannot receive Freeview transmissions.

[amateur51]

The pace hots up and the issues clarify.

Can you afford not to join in the petition?

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_murdochs_bbc_robbery_2/?cl=1539886081&v=12287

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Nonetheless they seem to be widely available......


If a house is equipped only with a Sky dish it cannot receive Freeview transmissions.

Yes, but it is misleading to suggest that an analogue aerial will not work. I remember the rush to sell "digital headphones" by the manufacturers. They were, of course entirely analogue and sales staff fudged with embrassment whenever I mentioned it,

[cloughie]

If the licence payer is contributing so much to BSkyB, why do we get such a poor selection of Sky programmes on Freeview? eg We used to get Jeff Stelling's excellent Football results service on Saturday afternoons, now we have to settle for 'Final Score' on BBC1 as a poor substitute, and we don't get that 'til 4.30 today - FA Cup having been hijacked by ITV, BBC take umbrage and minimise coverage - so much for a public service broadcaster.